Feminism/Archive 7

{{talkarchive}}

Response section

Can I throw my hat into the ring of requests and ask for a section on cyberfeminism and feminist bloggers? And I agree that a section on feminist artists is needed. --Lizasabater14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is being reworked, but I just want to register my concern that the 'criticism' section is currently very unbalanced. The paragraph relating to Masculism, Men's Rights proponents and Family Rights proponents, and their respective criticisms of feminism, is really letting the rest of the article down. Among other things, it appears to consider Men's Rights and Family Rights as the same thing; and makes ridiculous generalisations regarding so-called 'feminist aspirations to replace the traditional family' and 'Feminist encouragment of Lesbian agendas'.

Apart from anything else, it doesn't do any favours to Men's Rights groups, Masculists, Marriage Rights groups, all of whom have valid points to make and would presumably prefer not to be represented as reactionary and ill-informed.

I will do my best to offer more than just criticism of the current version, but as I am currently rather busy I wanted to make these observations, just in case I don't have time to do the necessary research to improve the tenor of the section.Miss pickpocket03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that much of this article is dated and gives a very Western, White, liberal stance of contemporary feminisms. There is little (to no) discussion of multiculturalism, intersectionality, gaze, (re)-colonializing women, saving vision etc... In turn I believe that the article should be entitled "Working Feminisms," the plurality creates a space for many different types of feminist activity, one that may not have a common goal in all times and spaces but acknowledging a fight nonetheless. This also allows the the term "feminism" to be fluid one; again creating spaces for change within feminist discourse and understanding. The term "Working Feminisms" could also be understood in several ways:1) a feminist voice that's working within daily life/narratives. 2) an example of feminists constantly working to renegotiate itself from language and idealogy that flattens and erases people/places as spheres of “more or less” freedom. and 3) by acknowledging the plurality of feminisms, we can see that there is no such thing as universal notions of "womanness," "bodiliness" etc... Although there are terrible things happening around the world we must always be aware that there are feminist agents all around the world at all times who often times do not have the same "feminist goal". Keeping this in mind when thinking about women in "other places" helps keep the seduction of a "saving vision" from creeping into our gaze.

I think, at least in part, it should stay. The criticism section references *certain masculist concerns* regarding feminism and mentions Warren Farrell some issues he takes with it. In the response section, I put quotes from actual published journalists and a sociologist who address at least three of Farrell's complaints/beliefs listed above about it from a feminist perspective. NeoApsara22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see the mentions of Farrell in the rest of the article cut down, too. He's just not as notable as the article makes him seem. Personally, I would prefer to do that rather than having a lengthy response to his work (which may give it more credence than it deserves), because the article needs to be shorter. The crticisms and quotes would be great for the Warren Farrell article -- perhaps they're already there, I haven't looked at it. Catamorphism22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree he isn't as notable as is implied (perhaps it should go in his own section?) and that was my first thought. But it was there and he was not unknown to me (I added some of his not-so-cool quotes in the Warren Farrell section) so I was aware of his critics, hence the section. He is mentioned in the masculism/MRA parts, so if we cut back some Warren Farrell talk int he article then the feminism, masculism, and Men's rights articles can just compliment each other. NeoApsara01:32, 30 May 2006 (UT)

The use of the term half-truth is biasing and inappropriate. Preferred terms would be controversial opinion or view. The referenced idea is a legal theory unresolved in most juristiction. No factual assertions such as a view being a "half-truth" can be made about it.

Commercials

Just one random point to throw in about feminism: Did anybody ever notice that males (especially fathers) are generally portrayed in an unfavorable light? By unfavorable, I mean stupid or clumsy. Women, however, are NEVER shown to be either of the two in commercials, and are in fact portrayed to be far more intelligent. On the flip side, one could argue that women are portrayed as sex objects in some commercials. At least some food for thought.

The fathers that are shown as clumsy are inept at housework and shopping. This naturalizes the women's lot as "housewife" due to their super-human ability to wield a vacuum cleaner or bottle of windex. This portrayal of man as retarded when it comes to house cleaning further subjugates women. These stereotypes keep us cleaning shopping for 'da man' and enrage men like my husband who seem to know how to operate a vacuum just fine. My favorite is the one where the boys and dad hide the carpet spots and the woman not only has to discover the spots, but also clean them. I mean, men are smart enough to be scientists and engineers, but fall inferior to the almighty high-school educated Merry Maid.

In 1987 in Ontario Canada, child abuse was based on the model, "men who abuse, women and children victims'. You will note the obvious polarized nature of the model. Why ?

A polarizing nature to a social model, based on a deceptive half-truth.

So if the 'model of men' can be corrupted why not the image of women. You INFER that portraying women as sex objects is a bad thing. Is it ? and where are the many faces of feminism on this issue ?

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feminism today and its issues

I think this section is very problematic. Most of the article emphasises how there are many different strands of feminism, and then this section is just about outlining the concerns of one of them. It mentions no organisations and cites no sources. Personally I think it wouldn't harm the article is the whole section was just removed, but I don't want to do that without discussing it here first.

Maybe it could be replaced with a description of the major current Women's organisations and their programs? Ashmoo23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely. By the way, thanks for all your work removing questionable content from this article. Catamorphism23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Catamorphism. I removed the whole section. I think anything I took out should be re-included under the sections devoted to each branch of feminism. Ashmoo04:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Emancipation

The wiki page Political_emancipation could use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more expert information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? When fewer than 1 in 7 US Senators and House of Representatives are women, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dem_fem_par-democracy-female-parliamentariansint=-1, and the United States comes in only as the 61st nation in the world in this respect, would you say that political emancipation has been achieved?

FredrickS18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)zz

Robinson0120 Yes, I would. Just because somebody isn't voted into office doesn't mean they can't be. If only 1 out of 7 Senators/Representatives are women, isn't it possible that women either weren't running or simply lost to a male candidate? The people decide who they want to elect. Just because there aren't equal numbers of men and women doesn't mean that women don't have the opportunity.

In response: But if people have internalised the values of their society which has been predominantly patriarchal for generations, there is not going to be a fair opportunity for a woman to enter politics. Especially not in the way feminists mean when using the term political emancipation. It is too simplistic to say that emancipation is acheived merely because women can stand for office, in the same way that it would have been too simplistic to say that men and women had political equality as soon as the franchise was extended to include women.

The nameless responder has a point. I will add that if men continue to control the money which is to be donated in order to fund the many hundreds of millions of dollars ($2 billion this mid-term election, I believe) necessary to fund modern American election campaigns, it may be no accident that these men don't fund a lot of women candidates (and those they do fund are often right-wing, anti-feminist male-identified women like Helen Chenoweth).--Orangemike Orange Mike 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure the responder has a point. Yet, one question a sensible person should ask is why waste so much time and resources on achieving supposed "equality" in politics? Why do men "control" that money? Women have had plenty of opportunities to get jobs and pay in quite a few countries; in the U.S., they have "affirmative action" working in their favor along with bunches of unspoken benefits. But this shouldn't get into debate... my whole point is that it's POV to say that women aren't emancipated merely because the numbers of men and women holding office aren't equal.Robinson012001:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to the world stats

A user has added the below

"*However, critics of feminism often cite the following as evidence that a female bias also exists in western societies such as the United States: * For every woman who is murdered, three men are murdered. "(US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimisation in the United States)" * Only 6% of occupational deaths in the United states occur to women. "(US Department of Health and Human Services)" * Men aged between 25 and 34 are four times more likely to commit suicide than a woman of the same age. Over the past 20 years, the suicide rate for 25-34 year old men has increased 26%, yet for 25-34 year old women, it has decreased 33%. "(US Department of Health and Human Services)" * Men die at a much higher rate from all 15 top causes of death. "(United Nations Demographic Yearbook)""

Which critics of feminism cite the following evidence?

What is a "female bias"?

How are these statistics related to feminism / womens rights? --Zleitzen19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Original Research to me. Notice how it cites primary sources, but no source for the anonymous 'critics'. But more importantly, this is the 'Feminism' article, not the 'Status of Men', 'Status of Women' or 'Are Men or Women better off?' article. So only discussions about Feminism itself should be included. Which this para is not. Ashmoo23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. I did, however, see some mention of suicides and suicide rates earlier on or in an archive of previous discussions. Furthermore, this is a talk page. If that user wants to add it, he/she can.

Yes, I don't see what this has to do with feminism, per se. In terms of murders, in Britain 3 women a week, and in the US at least 5, are murdered by men who claim to love them. Surely this statistic is more valid to a feminist argument. If men die earlier and more frequently by participating in a system that they created and perpetuate, it is only a feminist issue to the extent that all human suffering contributes to a less just, less equitable world.

Lead image?

thumb|right|50px

Wouldn't the Venus/female symbol be a more appropriate lead image, given its strong public association with the feminist movement in general? Or has this been discussed here before? Kasreyn19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know this hasn't been discussed. I'd be fine with that as the lead image, though I think an even better choice would be to attach that image to a new section discussing its use within feminist movements. -Sethmahoney Smahoney 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

good lord, is this the National Organization of Women?

can we get some "opposing views" in here? You know, the type that is taking up over half of all the anti-feminist articles on this whole site?—The preceding ) 2|.

There is no "National Organization of Women." Slrubenstein | 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That statement was meant to be sarcastic, Slrubenstein. But to answer the opposing views question, there are other articles related (and maybe even linked somewhere) that criticize feminism. Try checking around.

Actually, it seems like I made an error. There IS a National Organization of Women... it was started in 1966. Check the article on Second-Wave Feminism.

Actually, it seems like I made an error. There IS a National Organization of Women... it was started in 1966. Check the article on Second-Wave Feminism.

You ae wrong. There is no National Organization of Women. Slrubenstein | 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one called National Organization "'of"' Women, but there is an National Organization for Women though... -Localzuk (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And a heckuva lot of the members thereof are men, and happy to be so. --Orangemike Orange Mike 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. And the difference is not trivial - at stake in the wording is the very issue of ehther feminism is inclusive or exclusive. Slrubenstein | 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

References

I have added a unreferenced tag to one of the sections. I don't have time to read through the entire article but that section contains statements such as "The feminist movements have altered the nature of heterosexual relationships in Western and other societies affected by feminism. ", "In these circumstances, men and women have had to adapt to relatively new situations, sometimes causing confusions about role and identity. ", In response to the family issue, many socialist feminists blame this on the lack of state-provided child-care facilities. " and many others. Each of these statements need referencing and also removal of weasel words such as 'many' in the last statement above.-Localzuk (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole 'Effects' section suffers from lack of sources. The effects of feminism are a topic of much debate in academia and the culture at large, but this section makes many assertions without sources.

The 'moral education' section is particularly bad. It reads like a debate between two wikieditors. Its biggest problem is that it never clearly defines what 'moral education' means. Are we talking 'sexual mores', and if so which kind? Christian sexual mores, Western sexual mores? Or are we talking about socialization, or something else? Ashmoo02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed as original research. All unsourced material should go, and there is still a lot of it on this page. --Zleitzen02:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter. It will probably come right back anyways, sourced.

Eurocentralism

Under the criticism section I think there needs to be a mention of the rampant Eurocentralism within the Feminist movement and how often the Feminist movement will use its (Western) standards as a 'one-size-fits-all' model for women everywhere, while ignoring their specific culture, customs and traditions which may appear repulsive to most Western Feminists. When talking to and reading about non-Western (Africans and Asians mainly) one of the biggest criticisms I've heard is that Western Feminists (i.e. the bulk of Feminists) come across as another load of White Foreigners telling them that X, Y and Z is wrong (becuase they say it's wrong) and that you should do A, B and C (because that's what we think you should do) in a way similar to how the European Colonists would tell them that their practices were backwards and barbaric (because they say so) and they should do what they do (because that's what we think you should, for your own good of course)

—The preceding ) 2|.

This is covered under postcolonial feminism. The article is still very small, if you have expertise in the topic, it would be great if you could add your input. Ashmoo02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Women artists

There should be some sort of exchange between the contributors to this article and women artists; maybe also category additions at foot of both articles so there can be proper linkaging. Wimmin11:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-feminists?

I have added a cite needed tag to the section which describes Barbara Ehrenreich, as well as other female authors, as anti-feminist. Note that the article on Ehrenreich puts her in category: feminist scholars. It needs to be made clear that Wikipedia is not engaging in original research, so whatever source is being used for the claim of anti-feminism must be cited. Also, there is also an apparent paradox; how can Ehrenreich be both a "feminist" scholar, as well as anti-feminist? If I understand correctly, "Feminist scholar" means "a feminist who is also a scholar"; if it was intended to mean "a scholar who studies feminism", the proper term would seem to be a "Feminism scholar". Kasreyn08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:VER]] in the &quot;Criticisms&quot; section

I have placed OR and "uncited" tags in the "Criticisms" section. This is necessitated by the stereotyped sociological assertions made in the following paragraph which was just recently added: ... Kenosis16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Many who support masculism argue that because of both traditional gender roles and sexism infused into society by feminists, males are and have been oppressed. Marriage Rights advocates oppose feminist aspirations to replace the traditional family, as illustrated by statments made by a variety of feminist leaders such as Shelia Cronan's view that marriage constitutes slavery for women, and the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution and that freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Dr. Mary Jo Bane, associate director of Wellesley College's Center for Research on Woman suggested that to raise children with equality, they should be taken from families and communally raised. Men and Family rights groups oppose feminists such as Robin Morgan, the openly lesbian editor of Ms. Magazine, who advocated 'man-hating' as an honorable and viable political act and concludes the inequities between men and women can not be resolved until marriage is destroyed. Family and Men's Rights groups are also critical of Feminist encouragment of Lesbian agendas which undermine the traditional role of men in the family, such as Sheila Cronan's National NOW Times January 1988 interview statements declaring every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist. Many critics of feminism are alarmed by the prevalence of lesbians such as Patricia Ireland, the head of NOW, in feminist leadership roles. Men's Rights advocates view much of contemporary feminist issues extremist and unreasonable now that all the reasonable demands such as equal rights has been achieved. Issues such as the Violence Against Women Act are viewed as discriminatory and funding radical feminist or feminazi villification, profiling and demogoguery of men. Father's Rights advocates are critical of feminist efforts to block shared parenting after divorce and especially advocating or instructing women to fabricate false domestic violence or abuse accusations to win greater child custody and child support. ... 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the entire section was unsourced. Good call. Kasreyn04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken table

The table whose title is "'Female share of seats in elected national chambers in November 2004 (percent)"' looks wrong in both Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox 1.5. The table overlaps with some headings on the page. Andrew Moylan10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it too. In addition could somebody recheck the information in the table. I read a wikipedia article a few days ago giving completly different information on female representation in elected assemblies. Unfortunatly I can't remember what the article was...but if anyone of you should stumble on it please fix it.

asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in [[List_of_major_opera_composers]] ==

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composersNot_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music http://www.iawm.org, all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe start your own Wiki page that is a List of Major Female Opera Composers? However, I don't understand why, if you are listing truly major opera composers who happen to be female, that you should be considered POV. Opera is not my thing, so my question is are the ones you are trying to list as "major" as the men listed? Is it possible that the women you are trying to add are only considered "major" by other women and there is no male consensus? Once again, I wouldn't know. Finally, I'm not sure why you bring it up here, but should bring it up on the talk pages of the page on which you are trying to contribute. --Lorraine LeBeau18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Garbage Without the Sources

This article does not cite its sources! It is the unsourced garbage. Jimbo said lets remove all this of the original research so if you wrote this please give your sources BEFORE Im removing the "original research!"Opiner07:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs sourcing, however I believe the problem is not lack of sources but, instead, lack of "inline" sources. We have a huge list of books at the bottom which are undoubtedly meant to be sources to some of the article. This article cannot gain even Good Article status without inline references, so someone with knowledge of the subject matter needs to go through and inline some references.-Localzuk13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction too is very theory heavy and showing of the POV. Especially the quoting around "man" and "woman". this is very fringe view, sexes dont really exist EXCEPT in our heads. Maybe view of who wrote the article? WE dont know.Opiner20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the idea that sexes don't exist except in our heads is a "very" fringe view... Try saying that to the scientific community and see what they say.-Localzuk21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I meant. I agree with you but introduction with quoting "man" and "woman" presents it as one normal version of feminism.Opiner21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I misunderstood what you wrote.-Localzuk21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Effect on Language

Does somebody want to come up with a better example for the German pluralization?

As it stands, it looks like the solution in German is to simply use the female plural for groups of both genders, which isn't what the article says.

29 October 2006

Odd point

"Some feminists, such as Canadian journalist Kate Fillion, Carol Tavris and Camille Paglia, emphasize the importance of women's responsibility as moral, sexual, and social actors who sometimes do bad things for which they are accountable."

I removed it because it is POV, implies those people believe that but other feminists don't.NeoApsara01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the POV view these authors take. Eg that establishment 'gender' feminists are self-indulgent whiners who wildy exaggerate their victimhood, and presuppose moral superiority as a 'gender' rather than being accountable for their choices as people. How would you like this to be stated in NPOV.? (drop in editor)

the left and feminism

Hi. Doing some categorization work, I fell upon the article The left and feminism. I categorized it under Feminism which I suppose is quite safe but the title of the article strikes me as odd and, although it's overall well written, the content seems to stray towards original research. Anyways, I thought people involved in the feminism article might want to look it up. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this was a topic I was just about to address under the History article, but was was going to list under 'socialism'--Mgoodyear23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The faces of feminism. Moral+feminism and cult-feminism.

The faces of feminism.

Back in 1987 I began research into the various 'faces' of feminism, that had been ignored. Like anything, (except nothing) there is good and bad, a wide spectrum of types.

Back in the 1990's I had submitted to OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS various subcategories, including the terms 'moral+feminism' representing the most posiive of types and 'cult-feminism' the most evil of types. Confirmation from OXFORD UNIVERSITY that the suggestions would be used.

While this is my own research that cannot be added to the posting, is it possible that someone else might find this information relevant and post it as 'secondary information' ?

http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/webdoc3.5.html The Faces of Feminism

Take any ideology and if corrupted it can be bad; quite simple, even God's angels were corrupted, its all about free choice.

It should be noted that my research into 'half-truths' back in 1987 focused on some types of feminism that manipulated words and logic, one of which is equality.

People are not equal in the strict sense of the word, men and women are not equal on some levels of comparison. The issue, the real issue that 'feminism' focused on was in the 'inequitable' treatment of women. (it ignored men ) Treating people with fairness is not about treating them all equal. In fact the second law of justice, (source lawyer Sutherland) is all about treating people equally if they are equal, and treating them unequally if they are unequal.

You will note one great flaw with the rationalization of statistics, a form of half-truth was the use of 'womens salaries' with a complete lack of logical involment between women who were married to men and shared their incomes. The evaluation of simple statistical comparisons is illogical; To use a term I have discovered on wikipedia, 'weasel words' (Bravo !)!

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor point: The "see also" list at the end seems a bit arbitrary, for instance including "anarcha-feminism" but not liberal or socialist feminism - I could be wrong here, but I'd think the latter two had a much higher profile, and would deserve at least equal status. 217.43.241.21918:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While the word "equal" can mean "…the same as" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal it can also mean:

like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc; evenly proportioned or balanced; uniform in operation or effect: equal laws; adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree; having adequate powers, ability, or means; level, as a plain; impartial or equitable.

As a feminist, I would never argue that women are the SAME as men (as the above post treats equal to mean). In fact, with tongue firmly in cheek, I would agree with foremothers who say (to being equal/same as men), why lower our standards? But in a democratic society, in a Christian society if you will, all people are EQUAL. Jesus of Nazareth said it. The constitution of the US says it. The prevailing belief systems of the Western developed world say it: We are all EQUAL, as in equally valuable, to the earth, to biology, to the ecosystem, to the society, to consciousness.

Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti's assertion that there is black and white/right and wrong stems from the very narrow-minded and authoritarian framework that the founders of democratic societies have been fighting against since Western liberal democracies began to evolve. I say began to evolve because we have not yet reached a democratic state. As long as individuals and groups do not have an equal say and receive equal treatment, we do not have a democratic state.

User:Morgaine62 6 January 2007

I know I shouldn't respond to this, but I feel it's an obligation.

First off, how are we certain that there AREN'T any black and white subjects? I personally believe that the overwhelming majority of situations are in a gray area- but they are almost always skewed toward one "side" or another. It is NOT true to say that the points of individuals are "equally valid." Case in point- if someone says that gravity doesn't exist, do you say, "Well, all points of view should be given equal credibility?" No. You don't. To move FORWARD, humanity has to accept certain axioms, certain presuppositions. One could say that marriage roles are an example, but that's debatable. My point is open liberalism tends to be just as exclusive as "narrow-minded authoritarian frameworks," when you think about it. This quote was fun:

"As long as individuals and groups do not have an equal say and receive equal treatment, we do not have a democratic state."

I believe I have in a way already refuted that statement with the gravity statement; furthermore, if you actually stand by what you're saying, Squitti's statements shouldn't matter to you; after all, all groups should deserve equal say. Equal treatment, on the other hand... that's subjective. There's something called disagreement- in a TRULY democratic state, people are able to do that. People should be able to disagree with women's oppression, the Holocaust, whatever, without being thrown in jail (unlike in certain parts of Europe, America essentially has this one...). Sorry for a long winded rant. Chastise me if you wish. Robinson012000:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Icons

With some trepidation I added brassiere as a link, having been hammered over there for a feminist POV. It might not be a central issue in feminism but it acquired iconic status, which I discuss in the subarticle on history. It is certainly discussed a lot in women's groups, and links into beauty, glamour, self image, self esteem, body image etc. Mgoodyear13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Incidentally it is very difficult to write an article on feminism without someone thinking it is lacking NPOV. A lesson I learned when I tackled the brassiere question, and tried to link it to its social and cultural roles. I am sure we can rephrase an sentences tagged as 'weasel' without losing the meaning, and eliminate that NPOV tag. Mgoodyear15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative scholarship

In my humble opinion, we would all get on better together and learn from each other if we discuss the rationale for changes proposed or executed, here. Just a constructive suggestion. It also helps to have a master plan. Particiularly if the goal is to elevate the article through the Good and Featured categories Mgoodyear15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing it needs is better citations, I will do what I can (I note this addressed above). There are also inconsistencies between the different language versions Mgoodyear00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism alerts

IMHO Eowbotm2's contributions constitute vandalism Mgoodyear17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to UberCryxic for painstakingly reverting - the user has been warned Mgoodyear22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well, alot of it was, but a good portion was legit, in MY humble opinion. Whoever put that thing about "weasel words at the top was right on: I tried to make the wording more neutral in some places.Eowbotm201:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a vandal by anybody's definition and you have been warned. Many people have spent hours tidying up the mess you left. This will not be tolerated. Mgoodyear16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, the above then vandalised my userpage. Anyway - does this article need protection? Mgoodyear20:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put in yet another request for protection - not just for the level of vandalism but for the high level of obscenities directed against women, as hate literature. I think women deserve some protection from that on Wiki --Mgoodyear23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Plese remember to tag vandal's pages when you revert (and review their contributions) - otherwise we will never get rid of these people --Mgoodyear14:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychotic-feminism

The term is to refer to the reality that most people of either sex are concerned about the opposite sex. They marry the opposite sex, benefit from their incomes and normally have children of either sex.

Cult-feminism, the focus on the reality of 'women only' suggests that women live in issolation of men and is therefor psychotic-feminism.

The complex reality and interrelationships of people is overly simplified through the use of deceptive generalized half-truths and brainwashing.

The feminist movemennt has succeeded in unifying all women against a perceived common enemy, which is again oversimplified and based on half-truths.

For example, the false comparisons of male verses female incomes, totally ignores the income of families, ie a woman married to a man. Is there still not some women who are married to men ?

"'Caesarjbsquitti"' - People of integrity sign their contributions, even if unhelpful Mgoodyear22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Opps...

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, good job.

And don't some men benefit from the income of their wives? Saying that only the reverse happens is using a half-truth yourself (to use your own favourite term), isn't it? I don't even know why I'm trying to discuss this with someone who still believes in the "oversimplistic" and "psychotic" idea of feminism simply as an opposition to men... The aim of feminism never was and never will be to unify women, least of all against any "enemy". THAT's what's psychotic (and, as Mgoodyear points out, unhelpful; Wikipedia is not a place to discuss this kind of stuff, go and find a forum for that). x "'Iron"'RRR_User:IronChris/Esperanza_RRR "'C"'IronChris "'hris"' | 01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mutual benefit" of course. "The Aim of Feminism", well that depends on "who" was directing the movement, just as in any other movement. There are always those who will manipulate it for their benefit or their agenda. The great enemy of 'moral+feminism" is injustice of people, men, women and children. When I hear "patriotic' system, I see a rational explanation of an anti-male agenda that ignores all mutual benefit, women who benefit from men, men who benefit from women. In any definition, there is a range from good to bad. Medical profession, (doctors who kill), nursing profession, (nurses who kill), feminism, (feminists who kill); and are you surprised ? You should not be !

Painting all the many faces of feminism with one agenda is a half-truth; truth comes in the colors of the rainbow.

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I take the position that this is not a discussion of, but merely the identification of types of feminism, or any political ideology for that matter. Food for thought, and let us not polarize the issue through half-truths.

Oh and again. Men, (er some men) have always benefited from women (some women), and women from men, and not merely on the basis of 'financial' incomes. That is a materialistic perspective.

Am I correct to say that all men are born of women ? or is that discriminatory ? ( So if we are to value life over material things, all men and women, benefit from some women, for all people are born of women.)

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

--Caesarjbsquitti Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)